- SERVICE PROVIDER
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 11 June 2025
Contents
Ratings - Forensic inpatient or secure wards
Our view of the service
Onsite assessment: 11 and 12 February 2025
We visited Reaside to check compliance with the warning notice issued in September 2024 on Regulation 17 Good governance. At our last inspection we found a breach of the legal regulations in relation to good governance. We issued the provider with a warning notice instructing them when they needed to be compliant with the law. As a result, we undertook this inspection looking at some of the quality statements that related to our previous inspection. At this inspection the trust had made improvements. They were no longer in breach of the regulation relating to good governance.
We visited the forensic intensive recovery and support teams (FIRST) following a serious incident reported to us by the Trust involving a person using the service. This is our first inspection of FIRST and this service has not been rated previously.
We rated the forensic / secure service as requires improvement.
We identified 2 breaches of the regulations at Reaside in relation to staffing and person-centred care. We have asked the trust for an action plan in response to this. Sufficient staff at Reaside had not been trained in immediate and emergency life support. At Reaside people were not always involved in their care planning and assessments of their needs.
We did not identify any breaches of the regulations for FIRST.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 10 people at Reaside who gave mixed feedback about their care and treatment. 1 person said the times to access the courtyard were restricted and times changed which could be confusing. People on Avon ward said that since the activity worker had left there were less activities and they felt bored. 2 people told us they had not been involved in their risk assessment. People gave us mixed feedback about staffing and how this impacted on their leave. 3 people told us they had their escorted leave cancelled due to lack of staff and 1 person said the hospital was always understaffed. People said the environment had improved since our last inspection however 3 people said repairs were not always made quickly.
People gave mixed feedback about how staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. 5 of 10 people we spoke with said that some staff were not caring, staff sometimes ignored them, did not always respect their dignity and were not friendly or supportive. However, 5 people were positive about staff and said staff were lovely, caring, respected their dignity and responded when they needed help. Most people told us that their needs and wishes were a priority for staff, and they responded when needed. 1 person said that staff quickly arranged a dental appointment for them when needed to reduce their pain. However, 2 people told us that staff were always too busy which meant they did not always respond, 1 person said this meant they sometimes did not have access to fresh air as staff were not able to escort them in the garden.
However, people told us they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.
People who used FIRST told us they were involved in their risk assessments and knew how to contact the team for support when needed. People said their needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority for staff. People told us that staff were kind, polite, friendly, caring, respectful of their privacy and listened to them. We observed that staff were caring, sensitive to people’s emotional needs, respectful of people’s homes that they visited and respected people’s privacy. Staff spent time talking with people and ensured they understood.